Getting out for 0 is excusable, people fail regularly, getting out early will happen. Getting out once you are the set batsman is letting your team down, your job once you get to that sort of score is to go on and put your team in a strong position. A 50 is not enough to put your team in a strong position in Test cricket, especially opening the batting.

So you are saying getting a 100 and 0 is going to put your team in a stronger position than getting a 50 and 50, even though the match total is the same?

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

Yeah, it would mean that you probably lost the match scoring 100 in the 2nd dig

It does make a difference. Scoring 600 in the first inning gives the team a huge psychological advantage, even if they score 100 in the 2nd inning. This is not equivalent to scoring 350 in the first and 2nd inning IMO.

That's pretty nonsense imo. If they are losing any 'psychological advantage' by only scoring 350 in the first innings, then they are also coming back much stronger in the second innings with another 350. No difference.

I agree that it's frustrating that he hasn't gone on and made a hundred... but if Ponting, Clarke et. al. were all in form and making big runs, you'd be sitting here saying that Watson is doing a great job of taking the shine off the new ball.

As I said, it gets exasperated because the middle order has been fragile. If he was in the middle order and doing what he's doing I'd be more inclined to be very critical of him

Well I think everyone goes through patches of bad form to be honest and you arent going to have 7 batsmen in the side who are all in the form of their lives at the same time. To some extent its up to the ones in form to cover up the ones who are out of form. Hussey and Haddin have done that. Watson and Katich havent IMO.

Tendulkar = the most overated player EVER!!
Beckham = the most overated footballer EVER!!
Vassell = the biggest disgrace since rikki clarke!!

Well I think everyone goes through patches of bad form to be honest and you arent going to have 7 batsmen in the side who are all in the form of their lives at the same time. To some extent its up to the ones in form to cover up the ones who are out of form. Hussey and Haddin have done that. Watson and Katich havent IMO.

True, but Katich/Ponting/Clarke/North are quite a lot of people out of form. So it doesn't make sense comparing them against a team with hardly any players out of form.

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

One of the biggest instigators for Australia's success was the conversion rates of Langer, Slater and Hayden, the three mainstay openers between 1995 and 2006.

EDIT: the other factor is ensuring that you keep the fielding team out there for longer. Especially for the sake of the second innings; would you rather be facing a team that bowled for 90 overs, or 130 overs, in the first innings? It makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to a collapse in the second innings.

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

One of the biggest instigators for Australia's success was the conversion rates of Langer, Slater and Hayden, the three mainstay openers between 1995 and 2006.

EDIT: the other factor is ensuring that you keep the fielding team out there for longer. Especially for the sake of the second innings; would you rather be facing a team that bowled for 90 overs, or 130 overs, in the first innings? It makes it more likely that you'll be exposed to a collapse in the second innings.

Think this is a great post tbh, a point I actually wanted to touch on myself. Having watched England this series, it really had struck me as to how easy its been for the middle order to come in and score runs after Cook, Trott and Strauss (to some extent) have already got runs under their belt. It goes back to Australia's dominance and how it was so much easier for some of those middle order batsmen to capitalize on the efforts of Haydens, Langers and Pontings.

Its not even so much that coming in at 300/3 gives batsmen the psychological advantage. Its about the fact that a bowler who is bowling at 300/3 has already been completely demoralized by having been caned around the park. However, coming in when the team is 120/3 is quite a bit different because most bowlers bowl better and have their tail up when they sense opportunity.

The best way of putting it is that by getting out for 50, you keep the opposition in the game. As an opening batsman, by getting out for 50, first of all you've gone through the hardest part of your batting and gotten out, and also expose the middle order to a greater level of pressure. You kill the game by making 100s, and make it so easy for the numbers 4-6 if they come in at 3/200 rather than 3/120.

That would be true if you made a hundred in both innings. However, if you made a 100 and 0, any advantage given by the 100 in the first innings is lost by getting a duck in the second innings. In the first innings pressure will be minimal on the middle order, whilst in the second in will be at a peak.

Some player score runs by getting very high scores and very low scores (e.g. Marcus North) while others seem to get many intermediate scores (e.g. Watson). The difference between Watson and North, is that North has a ****ty average whilst Watson doesn't. The pattern of scoring is irrelevant.

Its not even so much that coming in at 300/3 gives batsmen the psychological advantage. Its about the fact that a bowler who is bowling at 300/3 has already been completely demoralized by having been caned around the park. However, coming in when the team is 120/3 is quite a bit different because most bowlers bowl better and have their tail up when they sense opportunity.

That is all well and true, but you are forgetting what happens when your in form batsman fall for cheap scores?

That would be true if you made a hundred in both innings. However, if you made a 100 and 0, any advantage given by the 100 in the first innings is lost by getting a duck in the second innings. In the first innings pressure will be minimal on the middle order, whilst in the second in will be at a peak.

Think you have just answered your own question. At least in the first option, you have virtually eliminated the chances of a collapse by scoring a 100. By scoring a 50 in each innings you have essentially left your team open to collapse in both innings.